CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 03-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2022)
MARCH 03, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Service Law: Compulsory retirement – Quashing of, when –
Appellant selected and empanelled for appointment as a Member
of ITAT by the Selection Committee – However, his appointment did
not mature – Respondent withheld his appointment on various counts,
however, tribunal and all superior courts directed the respondents
forward the name of the appellant to the appropriate Authority for
selection/appointment to the post of Member, ITAT – Respondents
did not comply with the orders and in the meantime initiated
disciplinary proceedings against the appellant which never reached
to its logical conclusion – Instead, the appellant was compulsorily
retired three months short of the date of his superannuation –
Challenged to, however both the tribunal and the High Court
dismissed the same – On appeal, held: Service record of the appellant
is impeccable – Complaints made against him are either closed or
has been settled, and this was well within the knowledge of the
respondents – Nothing placed on record to show a sudden decline
in the work conduct of the appellant so as to have compulsory retire
him – It is not shown what transpired the respondents to resort to
FR 56(j) and invoke public interest doctrine to compulsorily retire
him with just three months left for his service – Order of retirement
is punitive in nature and was passed to short circuit the disciplinary
proceedings – It failed to satisfy the underlying test of serving the
interest of the public – Thus, the order of compulsory set aside –
Fundamental Rules – r.56(j).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per the material placed on record, the
APARs of the appellant reflect that over the past several years,
his integrity was being regularly assessed as “Beyond doubt”
and this remained the position till as late as 31st July, 2019, when
his work performance was assessed for the period from 1st April,
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 30
30
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
2018 to 31st March, 2019 and found to be upto the mark. In his
APARs for the past one decade, till the period just prior to the
order of his premature retirement, the respondents were
consistently grading the appellant as “Outstanding”. No adverse
entries were made by his superiors in the APARs of the appellant
insofar as his work performance was concerned. No aspersion
was cast either on his conduct or character during all this period.
As per the service records, his efficiency and integrity remained
unimpeachable throughout his career. The inference drawn from
the above is that the appellant’s service record being impeccable
could not have been a factor that went against him for the
respondents to have compulsorily retired him. [Para 26][48-C-
E]
1.2 The respondents have referred to nine complaints
against the appellant, stated to be pending in the Vigilance
Directorate. Out of the said nine complaints, except one all have
been closed or rejected. As regards, the complaint at Sr. No.9,
which was made by the appellant’s ex-wife alleging bigamy, moral
turpitude etc. against the appellant. In the remarks column, the
respondents stated that necessary information in respect of the
said court proceedings between the parties was sought by the
department. The appellant clarified that a decree of divorce was
granted to the parties by the concerned Court and a copy of the
said order was duly supplied to the department against receipt
on 21st March, 2018. [Paras 27, 28][49-F; 52-F; 53-B-C]
1.3 In the teeth of the series of orders passed by the tribunal
and the High Court in favour of the appellant, the respondents
elected to withhold his vigilance clearance, thereby compelling
the appellant to file contempt petitions against the concerned
officers for non-compliance of the orders passed. Both, the High
Court as well as the tribunal, issued notices for wilful disobedience
of the orders passed. In the proceedings before the High Court,
on the one hand, the respondents kept seeking adjournments on
the ground that steps were being taken to forward the appellant’s
name to the ACC for being processed for his appointment as
Member, ITAT, till as late as on 31st May 2019 on which date
they were granted one last opportunity for making compliances
CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ v. UNION OF INDIA
AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.